Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ed2hands wrote: »
    You should watch the tone of some of your posts then and stop being condescending towards theism.

    As explained before, my posts are written without tone. I go to great lengths to do so. If you have an issue with the tone of them therefore then the origin of that issue is with you as you have invented and assigned a tone that was not there.

    Nothing I have so far said was either out of line or, to my knowledge, false.

    Tone is different however to coming out with a snide non-sequitur which has literally no function other than to be snide. Such as asking someone if they need a tissue which is on a par with the "worlds smallest violin" type comments.

    If you think such a comment is in any way comparable to anything I have been saying on this thread then you have managed to miss just about every one of my points entirely.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    You shouldn't be surprised if you get a bit of ribbing for complaining of persecution when you've taken the position you have to be frank.

    Not aware of what is wrong with my position. My position is simply this:

    If an idea or claim is made, and it comes with absolutely nothing to substantiate it in ANY Way, then I feel we should dismiss the idea or claim entirely and resist its use in our halls of power, education and science.

    If there is something wrong with that position then simply adumbrate the issue. Avoiding it with snide comments about tissues helps no one and is an insult to both of our intelligence. Thankfully your own more than mine.


  • Options
    #243
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I haven't even glanced at any of the links for those results.

    Ok so just to be clear, what you're saying is that it's embarrassing and disrespectful to "harp on" about a correlation between atheism and intelligence, regardless of whether or not such a correlation exists?

    Imo there's no such thing as a disrespectful fact. Choosing not to point out a fact to someone because you think they might not want to hear this fact is not respectful, it's patronising. And pointing out a fact is not arrogant, embarrassing or disrespectful, even if someone prefers to believe falsehoods and gets upset when facts are pointed out to them


  • Options
    #244
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As explained before, my posts are written without tone. I go to great lengths to do so. If you have an issue with the tone of them therefore then the origin of that issue is with you as you have invented and assigned a tone that was not there.

    Nothing I have so far said was either out of line or, to my knowledge, false.

    Tone is different however to coming out with a snide non-sequitur which has literally no function other than to be snide. Such as asking someone if they need a tissue which is on a par with the "worlds smallest violin" type comments.

    If you think such a comment is in any way comparable to anything I have been saying on this thread then you have managed to miss just about every one of my points entirely.



    Not aware of what is wrong with my position. My position is simply this:

    If an idea or claim is made, and it comes with absolutely nothing to substantiate it in ANY Way, then I feel we should dismiss the idea or claim entirely and resist its use in our halls of power, education and science.

    If there is something wrong with that position then simply adumbrate the issue. Avoiding it with snide comments about tissues helps no one and is an insult to both of our intelligence. Thankfully your own more than mine.

    I'm not avoiding anything and i'm sorry if you're a bit peeved at my low-brow sarcasm, but i won't be feeling too ashamed of myself for contributing to a thread where Athiests are maintaining they're smarter than Theists and where you have said things like this and have denied that it was completely inoffensive and without tone:

    It comes from the fact that there are many reasons people subscribe to religion/god belief (not the same thing but for the purposes of this post they are close enough to make no difference).

    Fear of death, child hood indoctrination, ignorance, wishful thinking, personal unexplained experiences, delusion, pride, simple laziness, or even claiming to believe for reasons when one actually does not... one could list all day the reasons for such beliefs.


  • Options
    #245
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ok so just to be clear, what you're saying is that it's embarrassing and disrespectful to "harp on" about a correlation between atheism and intelligence, regardless of whether or not such a correlation exists?

    Imo there's no such thing as a disrespectful fact. Choosing not to point out a fact to someone because you think they might not want to hear this fact is not respectful, it's patronising. And pointing out a fact is not arrogant, embarrassing or disrespectful, even if someone prefers to believe falsehoods and gets upset when facts are pointed out to them

    It seems you too are missing the point.


  • Options
    #246
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ed2hands wrote: »
    It seems you too are missing the point.

    I think you're avoiding the question,
    you're not actually questioning the accuracy of the results?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ed2hands wrote: »
    It seems you too are missing the point.

    You're saying that it's embarrassing and disrespectful to "harp on" about any correlation between atheism and intelligence. And since you haven't looked at the results, it seems that whether there actually is a correlation or not does not affect the fact that it's embarrassing and disrespectful to "harp on" about it.

    So what exactly is the point?


  • Options
    #248
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I'm not avoiding anything and i'm sorry if you're a bit peeved at my low-brow sarcasm

    Not peeved - You are making that error of assigning tone to a toneless post again. I am merely pointing out that a) it adds nothing to the conversation and b) it demeans you a lot more than it does me.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    you have said things like this and have denied that it was completely inoffensive and without tone:

    I do not remember denying it was inoffensive. Do you mean I denied it was offensive? However I gave my reasons for the list and I see nothing offensive, or false, in it. If you wish to find offense where none was intended or present then that is your prerogative and you are certainly not alone in this.

    If however you want to get over yourself and your offense and actually deal with the content of the list then I am all ears. Do you think any item on the list in question is in error or that there are not a number of people who think there is a god because of one of them?

    They do say the truth hurts, and all I intend to do is tell the truth. If that offends you then the issue is with you and not I. I do however wish you well in dealing with it and anything we can do to assist merely ask.


  • Options
    #249
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Not peeved - You are making that error of assigning tone to a toneless post again.

    That's your opinion. I have mine.



    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If however you want to get over yourself and your offense and actually deal with the content of the list then I am all ears.

    I am not personally offended. I never stated that. I feel the list was offensively and insensitively phrased. So sue me. But i will do as you ask anyway and get over myself because you asked nicely.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Do you think any item on the list in question is in error or that there are not a number of people who think there is a god because of one of them?

    I'll politely decline getting into any existential arguments at this stage thanks very much.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    They do say the truth hurts, and all I intend to do is tell the truth.

    I admire that and i promise you i'm not being sarcastic. You just have to work on your tone and you'll be grand.
    Oh! And maybe drop the intellectual superiority angle. That might also help:).
    Anhoo that's my lot. I feel this is getting circular.


  • Options
    #250
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ed2hands,

    Do you accept the probability of a correlation between religious beliefs and IQ as suggested by the findings?


  • Options
    #251
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ed2hands wrote: »
    That's your opinion. I have mine.

    Yours is an opinion. Mine is a personal knowledge of the facts. My posts are toneless. You simply have not the capability to annoy me. That is not a comment about you before you run to take offence again. It is a comment about me. I know what is required to annoy or offend me and it simply is not present with strangers on an internet forum. I do however have an interest in discourse and throwing out comments about tissues does not assist discourse.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I feel the list was offensively and insensitively phrased.

    I would have to go on more than just your feeling if I were to accept the point. Your feeling is irrelevant to me. The list was honest, concise and in terms of purely my own experience... accurate. I recognise other people may have different experience with theists than I, but the list I chose was based on the most common themes I have personally encountered in my dealings with such people.... though the list itself was in no particular order I hasten to add.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I'll politely decline getting into any existential arguments at this stage thanks very much.

    Pretty much as I said. It is much easier to complain about how someone said something rather than deal with the content of what they actually said. You have spent a number of posts now dealing with the how I said it, and have now declined to deal with the actual content.

    I honestly do not think, therefore, that you could make my point for me any better even if you were to give me your password and allow me to write your posts myself.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I admire that and i promise you i'm not being sarcastic. You just have to work on your tone and you'll be grand.

    Not likely for the reasons I pointed out and which I am now happy to repeat:

    1) There is no tone to work on. I work hard on making my posts toneless. Other people are assigning their own town so you have to work on not assigning tone to something toneless and work on the content of the post instead.

    2) My voice is my own. I do not want to alter it to be more like something else. The strength of atheism today is the number and diverstiy of voices within its ranks. I happily add my own to the mix as it is. I see no advantage in making it like another one.

    3) The number of people thanking my posts, thanking me personally, and even inviting me in PM to threads on forums I do not even read like this thread on After Hours far outweighs the number of detractors. The margin of this is significant being as you are one of only 2 people I can think of in the entire year so far.

    4) Altering tone does not help anyway. The most down to earth, friendly and easy going posters still get called arrogant and shrill simply by virtue of the fact they are disagreeing with the other person. So even if I were to ignore points 1 to 3 here and change my style entirely into the nicest possible person you could ever imagine... it will still not be good enough for some. So why bother?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Oh! And maybe drop the intellectual superiority angle. That might also help:)

    Says the guy with the snide tissue comment. I am merely tonelessly presenting the facts as I see them and staying true to the conversation and the topic. Youre the one that got snide and superior with the tissue comment, refused to deal with the content of anything I actually said, and engaged in a campaign of ad hominem by moaning about the tone of posts where in fact YOU invented the tone and assigning it to posts where it was otherwise not present.

    In short: Tidy your own house before telling others to tidy theirs. Especially if the dirt in theirs was put there by you.

    Maybe it would be better to engage with the content of the thread and take any personal issue with me up in PM from now on so as not to derail.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Seems intelligence is not the only correlate people have found.
    For many people, believing in God comes down to a gut feeling that a benevolent deity is out there. A study now finds that gut feelings may be very important in determining who goes to church every Sunday and who avoids the pews.

    People who are generally more intuitive in the way they think and make decisions are more likely to believe in God than those who ruminate over their choices, the researchers found. The findings suggest that basic differences in thinking style can influence religious belief.

    I think this ties in a bit to this thread because the above essentially says that people who generally stop to actually think things over are more likely to be the irreligious ones. I doubt anyone is too uncomfortable with the idea that maybe more thinking also correlates with higher intelligence.


  • Options
    #253
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I think this ties in a bit to this thread because the above essentially says that people who generally stop to actually think things over are more likely to be the irreligious ones.

    I don't think it's as simple as just stopping to think it over. Gut reactions and intuitive feelings are typically a response to some evolutionary factor that kept us alive but are unnecessary now-a-days.

    We've all been in those situations where we think something bad is going to happen, like when you were young and were afraid of the dark. It's irrational and you can't find any reason for it, it's just a misfire of an evolutionary artifact.

    This is, presumably, how that article ties in with the hypothesis supporting the original statistics (i.e. psychological neoteny is an intuitive response).

    People who believe believe because they believe. They're not being stupid, they're being intuitive. For them it's good enough. Some people don't have that sense of intuitiveness, which the hypothesis and statistics suggest is possibly connected to intelligence.

    You can't argue against intuition, it's a subjective response not affected by objective reasoning.


  • Options
    #254
    starlit
    Registered Users Posts: 12,342 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    Its hard not to follow your gut instinct though. It rarely fails. I have gone against it but often came back to haunt me so think going with your gut over-rules your head/heart. Though the head or heart can rule just as much but then again if all three rules and you feel its right then ya go with it whether what ever decision or feelings you have about something or someone regardless whether its intelligence and atheism related.


  • Options
    #255
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    doovdela wrote: »
    It rarely fails.

    I disagree, I'd imagine it does no better than luck. We tend to remember when our intuition helped us out but forget it when it doesn't.

    Many people believe they've a good ability to read people intuitively and will tell you they think can tell when someone is lying, in actuality they do no better than chance.

    We all assume we have reliable gut feelings, our gut feeling tells us we do. But we don't.

    We also tend to take these feelings to problems of logic. If I asked someone why they do the lottery they'll tell me "because if I win I'll be set for life" or something similar. And while technically true it's irrational to do the lottery, you don't have a good enough expected return to buy tickets. Of course the lottery is ultimately just a bit of fun but is a simple example of where hope or intuition or whatever overrides reason.


  • Options
    #256
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I don't think it's as simple as just stopping to think it over. Gut reactions and intuitive feelings are typically a response to some evolutionary factor that kept us alive but are unnecessary now-a-days.

    Oh god forbid (hah) I give the impression that I think it is just as simple as that. Far from what I think. However I think the correlation is an interesting one, much like the correlation of the study that started the thread off. And given the link between intelligence and actually thinking, one would expect the two correlations to present some interesting results when brought together.

    In short I just find it an interesting and relevant follow up article to the thread at hand.


  • Options
    #257
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iom0TchrfP0


    Skip to 21 mins in. Sam Harris discuses intuition in a religious sense.

    (Great discussion as well, watch the whole thing if you get the chance.)


  • Options
    #258
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Already have :) You would be hard pushed to find any video footage of his longer than 10 minutes that I have not seen yet.


  • Options
    #259
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I would have to go on more than just your feeling if I were to accept the point. Your feeling is irrelevant to me.

    Yes i gathered that.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The list was honest, concise and in terms of purely my own experience... accurate.

    I'm not debating that and i appreciate your honesty if not your tact. I was just giving my opinion/feeling/criticism of it's phrasing. I've told you this about 7 times, so let's leave it there shall we?
    No matter how many times i read it, i wont be changing my views on it.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Pretty much as I said. It is much easier to complain about how someone said something rather than deal with the content of what they actually said.

    Yes you've said around 7 times now aswell. As i said, i have no desire at this time to get into a debate with you about the content. That's not because it's too hard for me or that the issue is too "sophisticated" my friend. So there's no use trying to imply that.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I honestly do not think, therefore, that you could make my point for me any better even if you were to give me your password and allow me to write your posts myself.

    Quite the toneless response this one's turning out to be eh?:)
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    3) The number of people thanking my posts, thanking me personally, and even inviting me in PM to threads on forums I do not even read like this thread on After Hours far outweighs the number of detractors. The margin of this is significant being as you are one of only 2 people I can think of in the entire year so far.

    I am not questioning your apparent popularity nozzferrahhtoo.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    4) Altering tone does not help anyway. The most down to earth, friendly and easy going posters still get called arrogant and shrill simply by virtue of the fact they are disagreeing with the other person. So even if I were to ignore points 1 to 3 here and change my style entirely into the nicest possible person you could ever imagine... it will still not be good enough for some. So why bother?

    Why bother? I would have thought that was abundantly clear. Not to unnecessarily offend with tactless emotive phrasing dressed up as candour?
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Maybe it would be better to engage with the content of the thread and take any personal issue with me up in PM from now on so as not to derail.

    I have no personal issue with you so why should i PM you? You're confusing criticism of your post with some percieved beef. As i said i wont be engaging with the content.


  • Options
    #260
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Already have :) You would be hard pushed to find any video footage of his longer than 10 minutes that I have not seen yet.

    The Hitchens/Harris Vs. Wolpe/Artson discussion is probably the best one out there.

    Jews seem to have more interesting opinions than Christians in these discussions :D


  • Options
    #261
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Seachmall wrote: »
    ed2hands,

    Do you accept the probability of a correlation between religious beliefs and IQ as suggested by the findings?


    Do you mean lack of religious beliefs?

    Well the answer is i do not accept it simply because i have not read and do not intend to read the links as i believe it would be a waste of my time reading something i'm not interested in finding the answer to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I've told you this about 7 times, so let's leave it there shall we? Now matter how many times i read it, i wont be changing my views on it.

    Actually I have little to no interest in changing your views on it. Quite often on forums I do not post to change other peoples views, but to explore points of dissension in order to ascertain whether or not I should be changing my own. I do not use forums to prove myself right. I use them as a tool to find out if and where I am wrong.

    Suffice to say nothing you have offered aside from your personal distaste has affected my opinion on my posting style. You entire point appears to be that you have taken a personal subjective distaste to a list of examples I gave when making a point. An entirely different list might offend an entirely different person. You can not please all the people all the time, and in this case if a single person took exception then so what?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    That's not because it's too hard for me or that the issue is too "sophisticated" my friend. So there's no use trying to imply that.

    Maybe not. However if it was, you likely would say the above anyway. So hard to say.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Quite the toneless response this one's turning out to be eh?

    Yes! You're getting it now! Who says progress is never made in these discussions?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Why bother? I would have thought that was abundantly clear. Not to unnecessarily offend with tactless emotive phrasing dressed up as candour?

    It was no such thing. I was making a point and I gave examples to highlight my point. That is common practice in discourse. Points are often backed up with examples. If the examples I chose were distasteful to you then that's your issue not mine. I explained at length why I chose them. If you choose to ignore the point and talk about the tone instead then so be it. I can be forgiven for suspecting its a cop out.

    I am curious though, given your lack of interest in dealing with the content of my posts, and your lack of interest in following any links or engaging with the subject at all as expressed in post 261 above... what ARE you doing on this thread at all aside from to espouse indignation at people who's tone personally displeases you?


  • Options
    #263
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Fair enough. And just to repeat, i do enjoy reading your opinions and find them interesting.


  • Options
    #264
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am curious though, given your lack of interest in dealing with the content of my posts, and your lack of interest in following any links or engaging with the subject at all as expressed in post 261 above... what ARE you doing on this thread at all aside from to espouse indignation at people who's tone personally displeases you?

    Oh i didn't see this edit.

    What am i doing on this thread?
    The same thing as you're doing. Just giving my opinions.


  • Options
    #265
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Do you mean lack of religious beliefs?

    Well the answer is i do not accept it simply because i have not read and do not intend to read the links as i believe it would be a waste of my time reading something i'm not interested in finding the answer to.

    OK, let me slightly rephrase the question so.

    Do you accept the possibility of a correlation between religious beliefs and IQ as suggested by the findings?


  • Options
    #266
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I don't think it's as simple as just stopping to think it over. Gut reactions and intuitive feelings are typically a response to some evolutionary factor that kept us alive but are unnecessary now-a-days.

    We've all been in those situations where we think something bad is going to happen, like when you were young and were afraid of the dark. It's irrational and you can't find any reason for it, it's just a misfire of an evolutionary artifact.

    This is, presumably, how that article ties in with the hypothesis supporting the original statistics (i.e. psychological neoteny is an intuitive response).

    People who believe believe because they believe. They're not being stupid, they're being intuitive. For them it's good enough. Some people don't have that sense of intuitiveness, which the hypothesis and statistics suggest is possibly connected to intelligence.

    You can't argue against intuition, it's a subjective response not affected by objective reasoning.

    I suppose there are 101 reasons for belief, and intuition may indeed play a big part.

    Here's a fascinating article i found on A+A relating to reasons/motivations.
    Not sure if i fully agree with it or not, but it was a good read nontheless.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470


  • Options
    #267
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Seachmall wrote: »
    OK, let me slightly rephrase the question so.

    Do you accept the possibility of a correlation between religious beliefs and IQ as suggested by the findings?

    Well yes, i accept the possibility that those findings may have shown a correlation. But i think it's counterproductive to perform such tests unless your stated desire is to denigrate Theism.


  • Options
    #268
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Fair enough. And just to repeat, i do enjoy reading your opinions and find them interesting.

    Oh good because I rather bore myself :) As i said I am more on here to learn where I am wrong than to tout my own opinions. Alas the only way to have people show me where I am wrong is of course to tout my own opinions :) Whats a boy to do.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    The same thing as you're doing. Just giving my opinions.

    Indeed, just not on the content of peoples actual posts which is disappointing but one is often disappointed on forums.


  • Options
    #269
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I suppose there are 101 reasons for belief, and intuition may indeed play a big part.

    Here's a fascinating article i found on A+A relating to reasons/motivations.
    Not sure if i fully agree with it or not, but it was a good read nontheless.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

    Seems like he's taking a Fideist stance and while I don't mind that per se his writing is filled with poor arguments, misrepresentations of science and atheism and essentially concluding on a bad theological punchline.

    Not an argument that would appeal to me, ironically enough.
    But i think it's counterproductive to perform such tests unless your stated desire is to denigrate Theism.
    Furthering our knowledge of the world is never counterproductive, even if it does offend some.


  • Options
    #270
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Furthering our knowledge of the world is never counterproductive, even if it does offend some.

    I'm not sure about that.
    It works as a general statement, but when that knowledge is applied for somewhat controversial enquiry, (and let's be honest, this is not an uncontroversial question to be asking) then i would have my doubts about whether it's not counterproductive. Or to put it another way; what good will come out of it?

    Furthering our knowledge is all well and good, but as you know this reason has been abused before; not that i'm equating this with that, but it's sort of in the same vein for me.

    I mean would a test to find out whether say Cork or Kerry is the smartest be of any use?
    What would that produce?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I'm not sure about that.
    It works as a general statement, but when that knowledge is applied for somewhat controversial enquiry, (and let's be honest, this is not an uncontroversial question to be asking) then i would have my doubts about whether it's not counterproductive. Or to put it another way; what good will come out of it?
    Well in evolutionary psychology and anthropology it helps us understand why we think they way we do, the origin of beliefs and why we behave the way we do. That's only it's use in one field, it's applicable to various fields of psychology, sociology, economics, politics etc.
    I mean would a test to find out whether say Cork or Kerry is the smartest be of any use?
    What would that produce?
    Probably arrogance on one side and denial on the other side.

    It might also tell us about educational differences in the respective areas and how we can improve on them. Could explain a socio-economic difference between them. And I'm sure there are other uses.

    This research wasn't done to create a debate on who is smarter, that's a byproduct of it, but not the purpose by any means.

    Science should be allowed to question things without screams of political correctness or what-have-you, how that science is applied should be decided from a moral perspective.


Advertisement